![]() ![]() What worked for one game at one time rarely extrapolates into a formula, and so we fall back on is lots of rules-of-thumb. But the awkward problem that we don’t like to acknowledge is that most of the time the market is too fluid. Within some sectors where the inputs and outputs are very knowable (such as casino or first person shooters) they are worthwhile. However their value tends to be inflated. W hole sections of the industry thrive on that basis, providing advertising and partnership channels, cross-promotion, metrics packages, behavioral analysis, player research and so on. This is a reassuring kind of problem to pose for ourselves because it feels analytical, scientific and solution-driven. Our central assumption tends be that the appetite for games is fixed and therefore partially predictable, and so success lies in figuring that pattern out. We’re predisposed to think in patterns, but our thinking rests on shaky axioms. It’s very attractive to think that way because it feels like finding signals in the noise, and who doesn’t like to do that? That’s why numerous companies right now are rationalizing themselves into making a Tappy Penguin or Swingy Stork or Flapping With Friends or Flap Saga. And maybe if we do the same then we will see the same success. Maybe it happened to run a successful ad campaign through a partner channel. Maybe Flappy Bird was featured somewhere. There’s always plenty of room to speculate about tactics. We assume that the task of succeeding in games involves many factors that need to be broken down and analyzed, compiled into strategy for success. We persistently believe in the existence of the fun boson. The games market often behaves somewhat like the Hit Parade, and so we try to respond with better tactics. We’re always acting like mathematicians trying to solve quantum relativity, to figure out the magic ingredients that make video gaming hits. Some may be theorizing that successful iOS games should all feature retro graphics and birds, just as some console game makers used to believe that success on PlayStation in the US meant making games featuring ninjas, vampires or Nazis (true story). They’re probably adding categories into spreadsheets to model it against other genres. ![]() I have no doubt that developers and publishers from here to Timbuktu are now looking at Flappy Bird and trying to figure out what the “endless tapper” genre will look like. Yet if there’s one thing on which you can always rely, it’s that the industry will over-complicate what it means. ![]() Players still like to play a fun game that seems new compared to all the other stuff they’ve been playing lately. ![]() The repeated success of these games shows that there is always room for a new game mechanic. The game that seems to just pop, leaving many heads scratching as to how it did it. It’s another Dots, Temple Run, Ridiculous Fishing, Candy Crush Saga, Puzzle and Dragon, Tiny Wings or Fruit Ninja. Flappy Bird, if you don’t know, is the latest game-from-nowhere that’s taken over the App Store. It’s nice to know that the games industry can still surprise you and that – just when everybody thinks it’s been figured out – there’s room for a Flappy Bird. Is The Windows 10 Store The Next Step For PC Apps And Games?Įditor’s note: Tadhg Kelly is a veteran game designer and creator of leading game design blog What Games Are. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |